Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly you should have seen Hitchens his prime. Everybody jumps on Dawkins now-a-days and as mordant said Dawkins can be ham fisted. But Hitchens at times could be venomous and was probably the best overall debater of the "four horsemen".
Actually I'm very grateful for Dawkins and the four horsemen. But not for reasons of "conversion" or winning the battle of hearts and minds. No. It more for the fact that they (in my opinion) help create an enviroment where more athiests were willing to come out and willing to be "content" in their choice in being non-believers. I think that will be the legacy of the horsemen at the end of the day. But only time will tell.
I'm familiar with Hitchens and Harris as well. I may not agree with a lot of what they say, but I think they are all intelligent, and I am glad that they have made it easier for atheists to feel more comfortable in their choice in being non believers.
Thanks for that link. I am going to listen to that debate tomorrow.
What I find puzzling (and I've stated this before) is why do Christians-turned-atheists have to go from one extreme to the other?
Fundamentalist Christians are an embarrassment. Fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins ( + rest in peace) are also an embarrassment. Robert M Price strikes me as a more reasonable compromise between the two. He's an atheist but he labels himself a "Christian atheist"--he attends a Methodist church service and (as he puts it) " I keep my mouth shut).
You don't have to belong to either camps. You can find a common ground between them by becoming deist. That way you can acknowledge some sort of higher power runs things on a cosmic level but doesn't intervene in our lives. We're born, some of die early through natural processes; some of us are lucky to get through with a loving family and make it to 100 and die surrounded by 1000 grand-great-great/great grandkids. It's al a roll of the dice and some hit boxcars and some hit snake eyes and the rest of us are grateful if we can fall in between somewhere.
Isn't this a more reasonable, if not logical choice than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Fundamentalist Christians are an embarrassment. Fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins ( + rest in peace) are also an embarrassment.
An embarrassment for who? Surely you're not speaking for atheists, right? Because I never voted for you to be my spokesman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
You can find a common ground between them by becoming deist. That way you can acknowledge some sort of higher power runs things on a cosmic level but doesn't intervene in our lives.
No, actually, we can't just become deists - because we don't believe in this higher power you're referring to, whether it intervenes or not. Sure, I get what you're saying, but I can't just up and start believing in an impersonal god just because.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Isn't this a more reasonable, if not logical choice than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I agree that it's more reasonable than theism, sure. But believing in a god is neither reasonable or logical to an atheist.
What I find puzzling (and I've stated this before) is why do Christians-turned-atheists have to go from one extreme to the other?
Because believing in a god and not believing in a god are at opposite ends of the spectrum?
. Robert M Price strikes me as a more reasonable compromise between the two. He's an atheist but he labels himself a "Christian atheist"--he attends a Methodist church service and (as he puts it) " I keep my mouth shut).
Sure, you'd like it if we kept our mouths shut
You don't have to belong to either camps. You can find a common ground between them by becoming deist. ?
So we should pretend to believe something we don't just to please you?
So the thread title seems to have fallen flat. Dawkins has not lost his battle with God (or the god -claim, at least) in either personal or general terms.
I haven't always agreed with his line, manner or argument and as I have said, here before, he doesn't even seem to understand what atheism is. That isn't a relevant point. Atheism does not rely of authority figures or atheist saints to make its case. Snarling at Dawkins, Hitchens or O'Hair is beside the point. Each of them made points for the atheist case and those points should be considered on their merits, not on the basis of how much media exposure they had or what nice guys they are.
Hitchens was a public coming out figure. Dawkins has been as influential as Sagan. The atheist argument has had to reconsider this or that point, but I am totally convinced that its case is sound and becomes more rock -solid the more it is tested, and the case for God is not.
I don't know what is the idea behind thread titles like this one. It turns out to be without any substance or validity. It just sounds like shouting slogans in the hope that, if you shout it loud it makes it true.
Geez every forum on the internet is full of sides yelling at eachother and wishing the other side would shut up and go away. This means liberals versus conservatives, left versus right, AGW versus skeptics, truthers versus reasonable people and many more dichotomies of beliefs.
My only wish is that the atheists would stay out of the Christianity forum and limit their appearances to the Religion & Spirituality form, which seems to me to be the place for the kind of debate most atheists want to have.
Geez every forum on the internet is full of sides yelling at eachother and wishing the other side would shut up and go away. This means liberals versus conservatives, left versus right, AGW versus skeptics, truthers versus reasonable people and many more dichotomies of beliefs.
My only wish is that the atheists would stay out of the Christianity forum and limit their appearances to the Religion & Spirituality form, which seems to me to be the place for the kind of debate most atheists want to have.
Yea, that'll happen. But we have to keep on doing this for a number of reasons. I can understand why you would want us to stay out of Christianity and I would agree - if it was part of the TOS that a challenge to atheists should be relocated out here where we could get at it Because our argument seem to win out and I'd say we are now dominating this forum.
Oh yeah ... his views on rape are antiquated to say the least. Once he moves away from atheism, Dawkins starts to sputter.
Exactly. When I was just getting my land legs as an unbeliever, I was far more uncomfortable with Dawkin's "uncharitable attacks" but those don't trouble me anymore. Religion, by and large, doesn't deserve charity. What troubles me is that he's now got the notion that he can hold forth on any random topic, and not only does he do so, he does so carelessly. I was particularly troubled at his comments about being violated as a child. They lack the care a person in his position of influence should have, in making such remarks. Even if true that he was not significantly harmed, minimizing or being dismissive of such violations does far more harm than good in the world, and commits the error of assuming your experience is wholly representative of other's experiences.
Dawkins strikes me as one of those people who homes in on what he regards as weakness like a heat-seeking missile, and heaps derision thereon. He tends to see whining where he should see whimpering, and then he's disgusted by whimpering rather than moved by it. My impulse is more to protect the weak, but what the heck to do I know, and who's asking?
All that said, when speaking to fact rather than opinion, I'll take Dawkins over most other comers any day -- particularly Chopra. I can separate Dawkin's arguments from his personality.
Having faith opens up my mind, so I guess I have had a different experience than Dawkins.
Maybe not as different as you think.
I think Dawkins is talking about the basic conflict between asserting things that are not substantiated and in fact not substantiatable, in the face of established fact (or, simply defaulting to belief rather than withholding it). Whereas many believers, when they talk about faith opening them up, are talking more about things like faith as a vehicle or catalyst for being more tolerant, patient, loving, kind, accepting, content, etc. For every believer such as yourself who can say they were opened to these positive qualities I can show you one who is closed-minded and doesn't want to be confused with facts, or at least not those that challenge their beliefs, as Paul said, "to give an answer for their faith".
I would also say that many theistic and merely religious beliefs can result in the development of better adjusted people with good qualities -- as can many entirely secular beliefs. When it comes to opening one's mind to better things, arguably "whatever works" is fine, but I see no justification for the notion that theism has an exclusive lock on such benefits. Good people do good, in spite of religion. Bad people do bad, in spite of religion. People who are courageous in their pursuit of self-improvement and greater awareness, will use whatever is at hand to that purpose. Religion is just good at taking undeserved credit for the hard work of individual people, and fancies its service as handmaiden to personal development to be something uniquely facilitated by its mediation of god to man, when in fact it happens all over the world, all the time, in all sorts of religious and irreligious settings.
I used to be told over and over to see myself as "the salt of the earth". If I was / am salt, it is because of my actual actions in the world, and my actual motivations -- not sustainably because of a particular formula I'm following.
Yea, that'll happen. But we have to keep on doing this for a number of reasons. I can understand why you would want us to stay out of Christianity and I would agree - if it was part of the TOS that a challenge to atheists should be relocated out here where we could get at it Because our argument seem to win out and I'd say we are now dominating this forum.
Winning? No. Dominating? Yes, along with the universalists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and many more dichotomies of beliefs.
Because our argument seem to win out and I'd say we are now dominating this forum.
